Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1887-07-12

- Psrsst 0ivss Hs Reassss Per OAjsCssns
. QupesineeadeaN nuehsla'a lanoyaaluA.

- Parent 0ivss Hin Reassss FER OASsCsing
~ Ospssisssudsss 0ashslss lsasvssssa.
EDITORS OF THE INTELL10ENcER--As
one Of those who wore and still ere inclined
10 complain Of Prof. Buehrle's order I" to
the tsachers obliging them to withhold from
parents the results Of their children's annual
examination, read with much interest and
some surprise the result Of your interview
with the professor. l confess, however, that
neither hts nor your words have had the
effect Of making me zee that his action is "a
Propsr Order"
In the first place, protest that the 'order'
was not Just and fair to teachers parents or
pupile, In that 1t was % suddenly sprung
upon them. They hsd expected, and had q
right TO expect from the precedents OF the
past, that the reports Of the scholars would
be communicated - they had been for years
SO radical Q change Of procedure should
| have been announced before, long before the
examination, and not afterwards, suddenly,
unex pectedly and without word Of expla.
| nation.
Secondly, the chief reasons given for the
/ " order" II they have any force. apply with
the same force also against the monthly re-
porta II the yearly reports tend to over
stimulate ambitious children, submit that
| the monthly reports must do precisely the
same Common consistency demands the
| equal suppression or abolition OF all reports
Thirdly, the alleged 'crowding OUT OF
| dull pupils in order to raise the average per-
/ centage of teachers class is not prevented
30 long az the teachers are made acquainted
with their scholars percentage as they now
ara Besides, the suppression OF the yearly
report will not be a. effective In preventing
It as would be the suppression OF the monthly
| ones
Fourthly. however, If the teachers were t.
be left unscquainted with their pupils per
| ceutage what restraint or corrective In th'
matter Of promotions would there be? Th
| whole burden and responsibility would res
| upon one man, the superintendent ID
| would have absolute power and unlimited
authority and would he unable to disprov'
| the inevitable accusations OF favoritisin
| prejudice whim, unfairness, &c, that would
| be made by the numerous disappointed on nes
| He would simply DO an irresponsible auto
| crat
The case therefore stands thus : Unless thu
monthly reports are also abolished, and will
the yearly are kept from the knowledge
the teachers, the "proper order fails
| reach one Of its main ends But II this b
done then dangerous power and aulhorit.
| are given into the hands of the superintend
ent such as sm sure the public is not pre-
pared to give, and our superintendent woul
| he the last one to wish.
The only escape from his dilemma appear
| to me to lie in referring the wboie subject
our elected representatives, the board OF d
| rectors. They and only they are the ones
| whose province 1t is to issue such !" an order,
| for they are the representatives Of the public
and are supposed to express that public
sentiments and will, and are directly respor
sible to the public. And they, l am SURE
will not think parents interest in = child
standing In class and progress in its studie
to be nothing but "idle curiosity; but wi
recognize in the parents desire to have Al
official report rendered on the subject q nat
ural and commendsble feeling the parent
demand for such report being based on fluids
| mental right and the rendition Of the sam
only the plain duty OF the publc's servsn
to the public that employs him.
While, therefore, do not doubt that Pro
| Buehrle had the best intentions and pures
motives in issuing his "order," still fee
| that he made q serious mistake in doing i
l and that the order itself is very far from bein
> "a proper order"
Begging pardon for taking up so much
your space, sign myself PARENT